Standing Committee B

[Dame Marion Roe in the Chair]

Children Bill [Lords]

Clause 4 - Inquiries initiated by the Commissioner

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 11, in 
clause 4, page 3, line 22, after 'child', insert 'in England'.—[Mr. Touhig.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Marion Roe: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Government amendment No. 178. 
 Amendment No. 12, in 
clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out 'and Wales'. 
Government amendments No. 13, 17 and 182. 
 Amendment No. 18, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 34, leave out 'and Wales'. 
Amendment No. 19, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 36, leave out subsections (8) and (9). 
Amendment No. 195, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert— 
 '(a) any matter regarding children in Wales; 
 (b) any matter relating to children in Scotland; or 
 (c) any matter relating to children in Northern Ireland.'. 
Amendment No. 198, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— 
 '(a) any matter relating to children in Wales'. 
Amendment No. 21, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 11, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Secretary of State, in regulations, must specify procedures for applying this legislation to children normally resident in England engaged in education, treatment and other activities in another part of the United Kingdom, and specifying which body is to be the responsible authority.'. 
Amendment No. 196, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert— 
 '(3) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to— 
 (a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards to children in Wales; and 
 (b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Wales. 
 (4) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland to— 
 (a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards children in Scotland; and 
 (b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Scotland. 
 (5) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland to— 
 (a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards children in Northern Ireland; and
 (b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Wales.'. 
Clause 6 stand part. 
 Government new clause 27—Functions of Commissioner in Wales. 
 Government new clause 28—Functions of Commissioner in Scotland. 
 Government new clause 29—Functions of Commissioner in Northern Ireland. 
 New clause 6—Relationship between Commissioners— 
 '( ) The Children's Commissioner shall consult and work together with— 
 (a) the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland on matters concerning children's rights and interests throughout the United Kingdom; and 
 (b) the appropriate Commissioner or Commissioners on matters concerning children's rights and interests which appear to affect children in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland in addition to England, unless the matter relates principally to events or circumstances in England.'. 
New clause 7—Relationship between Commissioners (No. 2)— 
 'The Children's Commissioner shall consult and work together with— 
 (a) the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland on matters concerning children's rights and interests throughout the United Kingdom; and 
 (b) the appropriate Commissioner or Commissioners on matters concerning children's rights and interests which appear to affect children in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland in addition to England.'. 
New clause 18—Extension of the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales— 
 '(1) Section 75A of the Care Standards Act 2000 (additional power of consideration and representation) is amended as follows. 
 Leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert— 
 ''( ) The Commissioner may consider, and make representations about, any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales to— 
 (a) the Assembly, and 
 (b) where the matter is not devolved and the Commissioner considers it appropriate, the responsible United Kingdom Minister of the Crown or government department.''.'. 
New clause 33—Requirement to review the working of the effect of the creation of a UK children's commissioner on the function of the existing commissioners in the nations of the UK— 
 '(1) Each of the Children's Commissioners in the UK shall monitor the effect of having more than one Children's Commissioner operating in their nation simultaneously. 
 (2) Each of the Children's Commissioners shall make reports to the Secretary of State, the National Assembly, Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the findings of the provisions specified in section 1(a) and (b) above and in accordance with the following provisions of this section. 
 (3) The report shall, in particular, consider the impact of having more than one Children's Commissioner representing children in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, including— 
 (a) the overall level of understanding of children in the UK nations as to the division of responsibility between the different Commissioners representing them; 
 (b) the effectiveness and role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland; and
 (c) any evidence of duplication in work undertaken by the commissioners. 
 (4) The reports under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the coming into force of Part 1 of this Act. 
 (5) In producing a report under this section the Children's Commissioners shall consult— 
 (a) children; 
 (b) representatives of organisations concerned with children's rights and interests; and 
 (c) the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. 
 (6) A Report under this section— 
 (a) shall include the views of the Children's Commissioner on the adequacy and effectiveness of this part; and 
 (b) may contain recommendations to amend this Act. 
 (7) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every report sent to him under this section before each House of Parliament.'. 
New clause 35—Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons— 
 '( ) Section 72B of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c.14) (review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons) is amended as follows. 
 ( ) In subsection (3), omit paragraphs (a) and (c) 
 ( ) Omit subsections (4) and (6).'.

Hilton Dawson: Welcome, Dame Marion, to this excellent Committee. As I was saying when Mr. Benton wisely interrupted me, I accept entirely the good sense of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) was saying, but given the provision in clause 5 for the English commissioner to be directed by the Secretary of State, is there not a problem about the establishment of protocol between the commissioners of the various parts of the United Kingdom? Will not that inevitably lead to the other commissioners feeling unwilling to engage in any protocols when they could be directed by the English commissioner, or when he could be directed to deal with children from their countries, rather than them dealing with matters themselves?

Don Touhig: I welcome you, Dame Marion, to the Chair, and look forward to your guidance and direction throughout this sitting.
 In response to the point made by my hon. Friend, I simply say that I hope that they would not be so childish. The Bill is intended to promote the interests of children. People may not like aspects of the Bill, but I hope that the fact that it gives power to the Minister to give directions to the commissioner for England will not mean that colleagues in other parts of the UK will feel unable to co-operate or work with that commissioner. Parliament, not the commissioner, will decide what powers the commissioner will have. He or she will in no way be able to influence that, and I hope that that will not happen. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North opened her remarks by saying that this is a good Bill. I understand her concerns about the powers of the commissioner in Wales, and the overlap of the powers of the English commissioner to investigate matters in Wales in reserved matters, but I am sure she would 
 agree that the narrow point on powers, which perhaps divides us, should not take away from the fact that the Bill will benefit children. She made the point that members of the Welsh Affairs Committee and others feel that the Children's Commissioner for Wales should have powers to look into matters currently reserved to the Government here in Westminster. 
 The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked where the buck stops. The buck stops here in Parliament, with us. That is the devolution settlement under which we are working; it was proposed by this Government, it was approved by Parliament and it received the consent of the Welsh people in a referendum. We are not, in this Bill, rewriting the devolution settlement. I must make it clear that the Government line has been, and remains, that the Children's Commissioner, appointed by the Government in Westminster, must have responsibility for matters within the remit of this Parliament. To do otherwise would, as I have said, be contrary to the devolution settlement, and outside the scope of the Bill. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North went on to ask if the Government had done any detailed work on the possibility of a memorandum of understanding, which would allow the commissioners throughout the UK to work collaboratively. The short answer is no. We think that it would be wrong to do so, because it would pre-empt the commissioners and impinge on their independence. We consider that independence important, and we would expect the commissioners themselves to agree the protocols and the details of how they would work together.

Roger Williams: As I understand it, the Minister's case rests on there being a satisfactory memorandum, or some memorandums, of understanding between the commissioners. Is not it therefore reasonable that hon. Members should have some indication about the scope of those memorandums ?

Don Touhig: The difficulty that we would have is that that would be seen as compromising the independence of the commissioners. They will have the opportunity and the ability—because of the work done by those already in post—to work out a best way of working between them. We must give them that chance
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North asked whether the matters covered in her amendments and others in the group might be further considered on Report. That is, I regret to tell her, very unlikely if the Committee agrees to these amendments today. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) referred to the devolution settlement and the scope of the Bill. He was right to set the amendments in that context, and the points that I have made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North answer his queries. 
 I understand hon. Members' concerns about the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the fact that he will not be able to investigate reserved matters. I do not share those concerns for the practical reasons that I gave this morning. I was a little 
 concerned by the tone of the comments made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire this morning, not least because they failed to support me. We have to be careful about the language that we use. We should not paint a completely dark picture of the Bill, and we should not be intemperate in our comments, as it is not helpful. 
 We Welsh have a dark side. We like to have a bit of misery and grief; it is something that God has blessed us with. But the Bill is something to celebrate, and we should say that it is a bad Bill simply because there is a small difference over the powers of the commissioner. It will be good for children in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman mentioned problems that he thought might occur and cited the Clywch inquiry, asking whether such an inquiry could take place once the Bill is enacted? 
 Nothing in the Bill would prevent the Children's Commissioner for Wales from carrying out a Clywch-type inquiry. No reserved matters were directly involved in that inquiry. If devolved matters were involved we could reasonably expect the commissioners to arrive at a sensible arrangement that best fits the circumstances and allows the Welsh commissioner to address the issues within his remit. The English commissioner may support that, but he could not, through clause 4, duplicate an inquiry of his own. 
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made some telling remarks. He commented on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North. They were very interesting points, but he will forgive me if I add that I could not possibly comment. 
 Amendment No. 12, tabled by the official Opposition, is superseded by Government amendments, which make it clear how inquiries under the clause may be taken forward by the English commissioner. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are likewise superseded but relate to inquiries under clause 5. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham suggests that there has been some hijacking at the end. I ask him to be generous and to share with me. Is it not our duty here to make good law? If we can do so collaboratively, that is a good thing. If he feels ownership of any of the things that we are doing in the Bill, I thank him. That is about as close as he will get to government for a long time. 
 Amendments Nos. 195, 196 and 198 were tabled by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). We all regret his absence this afternoon; we wish him well and hope that he returns to good health. We know the valuable work that he has done. His amendments would go further and give the devolved commissioners the power to undertake inquiries in their areas. New clause 35 would also allow the Welsh commissioner to take on broader functions with respect to reserved issues than at present. 
 We do not agree that it is right for the existing commissioners to have functions that do not reflect the various devolution settlements. The ultimate losers 
 will be the children concerned, whose voices will not be heard in this House on matters that are decided here and on which Ministers answerable to this House have a say. The Government are fully aware that the commissioners must work together sensibly for the good of all children. This batch of Government amendments, of which new clauses 27 to 29 are the main ones, have been drafted after detailed consultation, and they represent the way forward. 
 New clause 18, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North promoted, would also extend the power of the Welsh commissioner by allowing him to report directly to the UK Government on non-devolved issues. Although that sometimes happens informally, as I explained this morning, we must work within the devolution settlement as it stands. The Children's Commissioner, who will report to the House through the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, cannot totally relinquish responsibility for matters in Wales that may remain the responsibility of Government here in Westminster. 
 I appreciate the intention behind amendment No. 21, which is to ensure that no child misses out because of a division of territorial responsibilities. I reassure the Committee that any child in any part of the UK with issues that they wish to raise will be able to do so with the commissioner in whose territory they find themselves. Even if they are on a day trip, they could call on the help, advice or services of the commissioner in that country. 
 New clauses 6 and 7 would require the commissioners to work together. The broader, less prescriptive wording of the Government's amendments will serve the commissioners better than new clauses 6 or 7. The purpose of any amendment on this subject is to ensure that the commissioners work closely together to the best benefit of all children in the UK. Given those assurances, I hope that the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham, for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) will feel able to withdraw their amendments. 
 New clause 33, also tabled by the hon. Member for Caernarfon, promotes the idea of a statutory review by all four commissioners into how the joint working arrangements will function. Given that we wish to achieve a practical solution for children throughout the UK with a minimum of restriction, we need to ensure that our arrangements work in practice and to consider future changes dependent on that. Equally clearly, the commissioners will be well placed to do that, reflecting the views of children and young people whom they have helped and advised in their respective nations. However, I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary to achieve that. Although I see merit in its intent, the commissioners may wish to review how the joint working arrangements are operating and will want to take any opportunity to make comments to this Government or the respective Administrations in the devolved nations. 
 The Government's amendments provide a mechanism on non-devolved issues which is appropriate in practice and will allow the 
 commissioners to work together under a memorandum of understanding. It will ensure that the views of children throughout the UK are made known and that the helpful advice and protection that we can give them is expressed. It is a practical and principled solution to the issues before us, and I urge the Committee to support our amendments.

Roger Williams: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Marion. We have reached almost a stalemate. The arguments have been made on both sides and there seems to be little give. I was disappointed that the Minister was unable to give any comfort to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North that changes could be made between the Committee and Report stages.
 It is not right to legislate on the basis of the worst possible scenario. In this case, the worst possible scenario would be an English commissioner at complete loggerheads with a commissioner in Wales, resulting in turf wars. I am sure that there is plenty of provision in the Bill for sorting out that situation. However, neither is it right to legislate on the basis of the best scenario, which would be of a happy, charming Minister in the Wales Office, a charming Minister in the appropriate Department and commissioners who get on well together and are able to work for the benefit of children. It is therefore important for the Bill to provide a better idea of how things will work in practice. The Minister tells us that it is fine, and that it is working in practice. However, the legislation does not concur with what is happening at present; if there were greater concurrence, the state of affairs would be happier for children in Wales and in England.

Julie Morgan: I, too, am extremely disappointed that the Minister indicated that there will be no further study of the proposals, nor any further effort made to reach an agreement by which all the people involved in the different countries can come together. It would be simple to devise a solution that satisfied everyone. The proposals as they stand are disappointing.
 In general, I think that the Bill is good, and I want to rejoice with everyone else about it. However, it is a shame that there could not have been more flexibility over these issues, so that a solution could be reached which satisfied people in Wales in particular. I intend to support the Government's amendments, which, where they insert ''in England'', improve the situation by making it much clearer. However, I want to register my strong feeling that Government new clause 27 will make the situation for Welsh children confusing and will not be a step forward. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 177, in 
clause 4, page 3, line 39, at end insert— 
 '(6A) Where the Children's Commissioner has published a report under this section containing recommendations in respect of any person exercising functions under any enactment, he may require that person to state in writing, within such period as the 
Commissioner may reasonably require, what action the person has taken or proposes to take in response to the recommendations.' 
No. 178, in 
clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out from 'section' to 'with' in line 42. 
No. 13, in 
clause 4, page 4, line 1, leave out subsections (8) and (9).—[Mr. Touhig.] 
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Other inquiries held by Commissioner

Amendment made: No. 17, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 13, after 'child', insert 'in England'.—[Margaret Hodge.]

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in
clause 5, page 4, line 14, leave out 'direct' and insert 'require'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 15, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 21, after 'must', insert 
 'as soon as is reasonably practicable'. 
Government amendment No. 181.

Tim Loughton: It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Dame Marion, not because the previous Chairman was no good, but because it is always good to see you in the Chair. You may have missed all the high jinks this morning, when the Government hijacked all our amendments, but they have not hijacked amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
 We think that there is an anomaly in the language of subsection (1), which states: 
 ''Where the Secretary of State considers that the case of an individual child in England''— 
the last two words were added by one of the amendments hijacked in our earlier debate— 
''raises issues of relevance to other children, he may direct the Children's Commissioner to hold an inquiry into that case.'' 
That appears to be contrary to all the warm words that we have heard from the Government in underpinning the supposed independence of the commissioner. We are therefore keen for the Minister to explain why— 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Tim Loughton: We are keen for the Minister to explain why the Government found it necessary to use the word ''direct'' in subsection (1), in the sense of directing the commissioner to hold an inquiry into an individual case. No commissioner in the other countries of the UK—or, indeed, in the other nations of Europe where such commissioners operate—can be directed or controlled in the way suggested by that wording. It is in direct conflict with the commissioner's independence and is unnecessary, because the
 Secretary of State has existing powers to establish judicial-style inquiries and can invite the commissioner to carry out the work.
 When the issue was raised on Third Reading in another place, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, said: 
 ''We do not envisage forcing the commissioner to do something against his or her will. Of course there would be discussion, debate and dialogue before any such direction was issued.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2004; Vol. 663, c. 1440.] 
In that case, why must the Bill contain the word ''direct''? The Government can use debate and dialogue to persuade the commissioner to use his or her independent power under clause 4, which we have covered, to establish a formal inquiry. There can be only one purpose in retaining clause 5 as drafted: to give this and successive Governments legal power to force—another word for ''direct''—the commissioner to undertake an inquiry against his or her judgment. Amendment No. 14 would replace the word ''direct'' with ''require'', which is more in the spirit of the independence of the commissioner, as the Minister will no doubt agree but have some technical reason for wriggling out of. 
 Turning to amendment No. 15, for once the Government have not tried to hijack our amendment but have come up with one of their own—No. 181. It seems to want to achieve the same purpose as our amendment but with a different formulation: it would insert ''as soon as possible'' rather than the slightly more longwinded phrase ''as soon as is reasonably practicable'' in the context of Secretary of State publishing reports that he has received from the commissioner. 
 I am perfectly amenable to being told, for technical reasons, that the Government's wording is more legally appropriate, but I am less convinced that they will be able to come up with a case against amendment No. 14, as the Minister would not want to be accused of being unduly prescriptive.

Annette Brooke: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Marion. With your indulgence, I would like speak to both clause stand part and the amendments.
 I am inclined to resist the amendments, because they undermine the independence of the commissioner. That is such a vital point—

Marion Roe: Order. Would the hon. Lady speak just a little more loudly so that we can all hear what she is saying?

Annette Brooke: I apologise, Dame Marion.
 We want an independent commissioner, and omitting the word ''require'' and substituting ''direct'' would not achieve the purpose that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham intends. Having any requirement or direction conflicts with the commissioner's independence. Obviously, the Secretary of State, can make a request, and I do not see how the Children's Commissioner could refuse a request. A request does not need to be in legislation 
 and I therefore feel that the entire proposal should be deleted. My hon. Friends and I will vote against clause stand part.

Hilton Dawson: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I cannot understand why this extraordinary clause is in the Bill, as it utterly undermines the independence of the Children's Commissioner. I am not aware of any other children's commissioner in the world who works under a requirement by which they can be made to undertake an inquiry by the Secretary of State. We want a commissioner who is a thorn in the side of Government and that cannot possibly equate with his being required to do something by Government. If the commissioner is to be there for children and to listen to them, I do not see how on earth the Bill can have a requirement in the clause.

Andrew Turner: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is it not better to have someone to whom the Secretary of State may direct such a request or a requirement for an inquiry, rather than merely leaving it in the hands of the Secretary of State to pick someone—perhaps a noble Lord or a former Cabinet Secretary—to undertake the inquiry on his behalf?

Hilton Dawson: Lord Laming did a thoroughly good job of the Climbie report but spent a colossal amount of time doing so. He could not have done anything with his time for many months other than conduct the inquiry, and that is part of my point. How can we seriously put a Children's Commissioner in such a position? He will make a commitment to children, timetable many meetings and discussions with the UK Youth Parliament, youth forums and young people throughout the country, and perhaps decide to work on a particular topic that young people have identified as important to them. Then he will suddenly have to say, ''I'm sorry, it's all off: meetings aren't going to happen, reports aren't going to be written and issues aren't going to be discussed because the Secretary of State requires me to do something else.''
 That cannot possibly be right. If this is a Children's Commissioner, he should work to children's priorities, not the Secretary of State's. The Secretary of State might want to raise all sorts of important issues, but with all due respect he has a huge range of eminent people from which to choose to conduct such inquiries. If the Secretary of State firmly believes that the commissioner should take up a particular inquiry, he should not just direct or discuss the issue with him—let him darn well go out to the children and young people of this country and ask them if it is a priority for them that the commissioner takes the issue on. 
 The provision utterly compromises the commissioner's independence and is a fundamental flaw in the proposal. As I said to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales earlier, I firmly believe that it will undermine any efforts for co-operation with other commissioners across the United Kingdom, let alone Europe or the rest of the world. In particular, I cannot see the other UK commissioners, who have been given independence by their bodies, being willing to engage with somebody who does not 
 have such independence or agreeing to any protocols on joint working that include someone who can be directed not by children but by the state to develop a line of inquiry. Clause 5 is completely wrong and should be dismissed.

Margaret Hodge: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Dame Marion. I am particularly pleased as you and I hold much in common. I gather that our photographs are next to each other in the school that we both attended, and until I looked you up I had not realised that you stood for election in my wonderful constituency in 1979, presumably when the late Jo Richardson won. I am delighted to work under your chairmanship. There may be a conflict of interest. We are probably the only two who ever went to that school.

Tim Loughton: Two what?

Eleanor Laing: Two extremely successful women.

Margaret Hodge: Absolutely.
 I want first to respond to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), because I am astounded by their contributions. We have spent a lot of time over the past day and a half discussing whether the commissioner should investigate individual cases. We are now talking about a situation in which there is an individual case of such national significance and import that the Secretary of State would want the commissioner to investigate it, and I suddenly hear the argument that we do not want the commissioner to spend all his time looking at individual cases. That is precisely the argument that I held in the opposite direction. I cannot understand it; I fail to see the logic of the argument that is being made by two people for whom I have enormous respect. 
 Our reason for saying that should the Secretary of State require the commissioner to undertake such an inquiry, there would be additional funding for it—I think that that was mentioned in an earlier debate—was to ensure that the commissioner's resources could not be eaten up in pursuit of a particular inquiry, however important it might be. We cannot have our cake and eat it. One can argue either that the commissioner should investigate no individual complaints—the Government have conceded that in both clause 4 and clause 5—or that he should be free to do so. One cannot argue that in one case he can but in another he cannot.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister. I am not sure whether I am one of the people whom she is endeavouring to name and shame. I did not speak about individual cases. Can she confirm, because she would not tell us for sure on Tuesday, that if additional funds are to be allocated to the Children's Commissioner, they will be given purely as
 supplementary funds for the additional work that he is being required to do, and for no other purposes will his work be directed and those funds be ring-fenced? She would not give that undertaking on Tuesday, but she is now trying to suggest that she did.

Margaret Hodge: The point that I just made was that were the commissioner to be asked to undertake an investigation into a case of such national significance that the Secretary of State believed it warranted an inquiry, additional funding would be available. There is no intention for the Secretary of State or any Minister to intervene in how the commissioner chooses to expend the general budget that we have set, so long as he does so within the general functions that we determine.

Hilton Dawson: In an effort to re-trek across the parallel universe that we seem to be inhabiting, can the Minister tell me, given that she supports clause 5 so strongly, whether she seriously believes that the Children's Commissioner is independent of Government?

Margaret Hodge: Yes, I do. Time will tell whether it is my judgment or my hon. Friend's that is right.

Annette Brooke: Does the Minister accept what the clause empowers successive Secretaries of State to do? It puts into somebody's hands the enormous power to demand an inquiry that might be against the judgment of the appointed Children's Commissioner. If I am reading that correctly, I should be grateful for her comments. Does she have no concerns about that, for the future, if not for now?

Margaret Hodge: I will respond to the issue of substance, which I think was the purpose of the amendment. The Secretary of State already has the enormous power to determine whether he will hold an inquiry into a particular case if he believes that it warrants it; he holds that power now. The issue that we are discussing is whether the commissioner is the appropriate person to undertake such inquiries, so let us deal with that under amendment No. 14.
 I accept the purpose for which the amendment was tabled. However, I am told that the lawyers say that the difference between ''direct'' and ''require'' is pretty non-existent. Why have we chosen to put the word ''direct'' into the clause? This is a limited power to allow the Secretary of State to require the Children's Commissioner to lead an inquiry into a matter of such gravity that he feels an inquiry is appropriate. It is an extremely limited power. It adds to the Secretary of State's options for finding effective leadership to undertake exercises of this importance. It also has the significant practical advantage for the commissioner of creating a moral—if not a legal—obligation on the Secretary of State to fund such an inquiry properly with supplementary financial provisions, rather than expecting the commissioner to fund it from his annual budget.

Tim Loughton: I hear what the Minister says, but what is the difference between the Secretary of State's existing power to establish judicial-style inquiries, as
 with Lord Laming, which would be funded directly, and getting the Children's Commissioner to do it? In what circumstances does she envisage that she would want the Children's Commissioner to be told to hold an inquiry that he is reluctant to initiate himself, that could not be achieved by appointing a Lord Laming-type inquiry which he already has the powers to do?

Margaret Hodge: One of the purposes of establishing a Children's Commissioner is that we have a function within the landscape that will develop a specific expertise for carrying out the sort of inquiries that Lord Laming did so effectively in relation to the death of Victoria Climbie. If we create that function, the Children's Commissioner seems the obvious person whom the Secretary of State would ask to undertake the inquiry. Undoubtedly there are other experienced people in the House of Lords or elsewhere who could do the work, but if we have a specific body established to protect children's interests, surely it is the obvious body to which to turn if there is a case of such importance that we want to have a proper inquiry to look at its national significance.
 As Lady Ashton said in the other place, in reality the Secretary of State would want to discuss the matter with the commissioner to ensure that they reach a mutual understanding. I find it extremely difficult to envisage any situation where the Secretary of State considered that the case was of such importance that it warranted a national inquiry and the commissioner did not concur with that view. Perhaps other hon. Members can help me.

Tim Loughton: The Minister makes the point exactly—so why put it into the Bill where there are two fallbacks? First, the Secretary of State can order a judicial inquiry by Lord Laming's equivalents; and secondly, it would be part of the performance-related material and could count against the commissioner in an assessment. There are two checks and balances there, so why does it need to be put so forcefully when it appears so prescriptive in the Bill?

Margaret Hodge: In the situation where Parliament and the public express such horror and concern about a particular incident, the Government should be seen to respond on behalf of us all in a strong and measured way. Having that power of direction reflects the gravity of the sort of case we envisage being subject to a specific inquiry directed by the Secretary of State and hence we have used those words.
 A lot has been made of that issue. I ask that amendment No. 14 be not pushed to a vote not only because it will make no difference in practice but so that hon. Members understand the intent behind the phraseology of the clause, and its importance as it stands.

Andrew Turner: Unless I have missed something, that seems merely to be so that the Secretary of State can show that he is doing something. That is the tenor of what the Minister said to my hon. Friend.

Margaret Hodge: The Secretary of State can do something in any case; he has that power. In the instance of a grave and terrible tragedy, which is the sort of situation that might require such an inquiry, the gravity of the case would require us to have a stronger response—so requiring the commissioner to undertake an inquiry is appropriate.
 The intent of the Opposition's amendment No. 15 and ours is the same. As I said when speaking to an earlier amendment—this is lawyers' heyday stuff—our wording more appropriately meets the intent of the Opposition Members who tabled amendment No. 15. The words ''as soon as possible'' would make it a duty to do everything one could to make it a priority, whereas 
''as soon as is reasonably practicable'' 
could be interpreted as less pressing, and would allow one to take other matters into account and to prioritise on the basis of what one could reasonably do. Given that the intent is the same, and that the advice of parliamentary draftsmen is that our wording would give better effect to that intent, I hope that we can agree to the Government amendment.

Tim Loughton: It has been an interesting debate, but I am not altogether convinced at the end of it. We have heard some rather weak arguments. I think that the cat was let out of the bag when, in justifying her comments to my hon. Friend just now, the Minister said that in such grave circumstances it would be appropriate to ''require'' the commissioner to conduct an inquiry. That is the very word that we used in our amendment, not ''direct''. She makes the legalese point—we must take officials' word for it—that there is little difference in drafting between ''require'' and ''direct''. That is as may be. Certainly there are enough people who are better versed than me in such matters who think that the word ''direct'' is unduly prescriptive and would feel much happier with the word ''require'', but I think that there is a difference. However, she tells me that she accepts the meaning of the amendment.
 I also accept her point about the difference between 
''as soon as is reasonably practicable'' 
and ''as soon as possible''. We shall not argue the toss over that one. However, I am not happy that she has made a suitable case against amendment No. 14, although her language suggests that she agrees with the thrust of what we are saying. I shall not push the amendment to a vote, and we may return to it on Report. However, she might like to reflect on the language, as the amendment would not compromise her position but might send out some good messages to those who set a lot of store by the wording. 
 We did not agree with striking out the whole clause, although I can entirely see why some Government and Liberal Democrat Members want to do so, because they think that it completely compromises the independence of the commissioner. If that were the case, I would have a good deal of sympathy with that position, because of the five principles that I set out this morning on how the legislation relating to the commissioner would be judged. If we simply struck 
 out clause 5, we would lose some strategic elements, because there are no replacement amendments to insert some of those aspects. For example, the clause authorises the commissioner to hold inquiries in private where appropriate, such as if there are sensitive issues with particular children. Where a child's identity might be compromised, there are various courses of action that could be taken under subsection (5).

Hilton Dawson: Are those issues not catered for in clause 4—''Inquiries initiated by Commissioner''—and certain subsections of clause 2?

Tim Loughton: We are dealing with different sorts of inquiries. The wording is slightly different, so I am not sure about that, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a good point, which is why the Government must reflect on the wording of the amendment. We have already had a big argument about clause 4(8) and (9) and the issue of devolution, which I shall not return to.
 The wording of the clause is unsatisfactory. I hope that rather than having to vote against the clause, the Government will come back on Report with a reworded clause to reflect our concerns and those of other hon. Members. If they are not prepared to do that, there will be a good case for voting against it on Report.

Hilton Dawson: Given that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to support the clause to the extent of not voting against it, does he share my concern that somebody who can be required or directed to inquire into grave cases no longer has the facility to base their interests on children's rights after the amendments made yesterday?

Tim Loughton: I heard the points that the hon. Gentleman made and we are sympathetic to each other's cases. That is why, for the purposes of getting on to another clause that does not involve the Children's Commissioner—we are almost halfway through the time allocated for this stage of the Bill—I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I reserve the right to return to the issue on Report when we may raise our concerns again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 181, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 22, at end insert 'as soon as possible'. 
No. 182, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 34, leave out from 'section' to end of line 46.—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 6 disagreed to.

Clause 7 - Co-operation to improve well-being

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
clause 7, page 5, line 22, after 'partners', insert 'to include voluntary organisations'.
 At last, we have reached part 2, about halfway through our proceedings. The clause deals with the principle of joined-up approaches between the professionals—the various agencies and bodies involved in child protection and promoting the welfare of children. 
 Amendment No. 24 is a probing amendment. Many voluntary organisations involved with children's welfare have made representations about the clause, because they feel that voluntary partners should be mentioned in the Bill—as it stands, they are not. I am sure that the Government are mindful of the good work and essential involvement of voluntary bodies in this area. Without them—be it the NSPCC, Barnardo's or any of the wealth of other voluntary bodies—much of what we are trying to achieve would not be possible. 
 Amendment No. 24 would therefore include the mention of voluntary organisations. I know what the Government will say: that that would give undue preference to a particular body of people. On Tuesday, we were told that even parents would not be afforded any particular recognition; they do not occupy a special place in our attitudes towards children. If even parents cannot get mentioned in part 1, I am not optimistic that voluntary organisations will be included in part 2. However, we keep on trying, because we believe that voluntary organisations play a particularly important role, and that it would be useful for them to be named. 
 On occasions, conflicts occur between a commissioning local authority and particular voluntary organisations. Local authorities may, on the one hand, view voluntary organisations as merely cheap labour to provide services—they provide those services very well—or, on the other hand, may ignore them if they are not required. Both positions are 
 equally untenable. We believe that including voluntary organisations in the Bill would strengthen it and would also remind the various authorities and agencies of Government that voluntary partners are essential to make the joined-up approach work. That is why I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Stephen Ladyman: I welcome you to the Chair, Dame Marion. I am confident in saying that you and I never attended the same school, and equally confident in saying that none of the schools that I attended have ever put up my picture.
 I also say to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that, since I am dealing with the clause, he is right not to be optimistic. However, I agree with him about the importance of voluntary organisations: they are vital if we are to deliver on this agenda. They need to be involved not just as providers of services but in commissioning and developing strategy and policy. However, we cannot support the amendment, because to include voluntary organisations in the Bill would be to treat them as a cohesive group, which they are not. If we expected the partners to treat them as such, they would have to choose between them and would find that difficult. In addition, the Bill is a two-way street. It imposes responsibilities as well as rights on the partners. 
 Under the amendment, voluntary organisations would be expected to fulfil certain duties, but many would not be able to fulfil their part of the bargain, even though they could still make a valuable contribution as part of the overall strategy. That is why subsection (1)(c) provides for the inclusion of voluntary organisations in a sustainable way. We support such involvement and have undertaken to produce guidance that will say clearly that voluntary organisations should be part of the co-operative partnership that we are trying to create. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton: Those are perfectly practical responses to the amendment. The recognition of the importance of voluntary organisations is welcome and probably the most that we can expect at this stage. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hilton Dawson: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in
clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—
'(d) neighbouring children's services authorities particularly when boundaries between the authorities are crossed by relevant partners.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 23, in 
clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert— 
 '(1A) This section also applies to children in the authority's care but placed outside that authority area whilst in their care.'. 
Amendment No. 60, in 
clause 7, page 5, line 27, after 'children', insert 
 'living in or becoming known to agencies'. 
 Amendment No. 215, in 
clause 7, page 6, line 7, leave out 'for England' and insert 
 'for the area any part of which falls within the area of the children's services authority'. 
Amendment No. 33, in 
clause 8, page 7, line 4, after 'children', insert— 
 '(aa) considerations apply equally to children in the care of the children's services authority who are being looked after out of that authority's geographical area, and regulations will specify procedures for the responsible body.'. 
New clause 9—Children's services in England— 
 '(1) Where a children's services authority is a county council it must publish a plan for the devolution of co-operative arrangements to improve the well-being of children in the authority's area to district or primary care trust level. 
 (2) This devolved plan shall be reviewed every 4 years and the results of that review published.'.

Hilton Dawson: I am pleased that we have moved on to discuss clause 7, which is an estimable and wonderful clause that I do not criticise in any way whatever.

Tim Loughton: It is too late now.

Hilton Dawson: In lots of senses.
 I support the clause, which is fundamental to developing the new world of high-quality, integrated and child-centred children's services that we hope the Bill will bring about, but there are clearly ways in which it could be improved. I am sometimes frustrated when reading Government documents, and that was particularly the case when I read the Green Paper, because many of the references to local government seemed to be to fairly small metropolitan boroughs and boroughs that had the great good fortune of being coterminous with key partners. Unfortunately, life is not like that in large parts of the country. 
 My aim in amendment No. 59, therefore, is to promote co-operation not only with the authority's relevant partners and other bodies that exercise functions in relation to children in the authority's area but with neighbouring authorities. I am thinking in particular of county councils that share boundaries with primary care trusts or that share a police authority. Just from practical, everyday experience, I recommend the amendment as a sensible move to ensure that there is co-ordination and cohesion between those bodies and that we do not have a body such as Morecambe Bay primary care trust working across a very large rural area and having to relate not only to three districts but to two children's services authorities that perhaps have different priorities and ways of operating. It is essential to try to ensure that there is co-operation. 
 Along the same lines, new clause 9 addresses itself to my local situation. We have a huge county council in Lancashire, which encompasses 12 districts and eight primary care trusts. I have lived in the area and worked for the authority, and I simply do not believe that it is possible to build co-operative arrangements in an area of such a size and complexity and with such different relationships and interrelationships without trying to ensure an effective form of devolution. 
 New clause 9 is an attempt to be helpful and to try and make things work on the ground. It would provide that county councils should publish a plan for the devolution of co-operative arrangements for the key partners to a level that makes more sense to people than the entire county council area. That devolution would be to district level where all the partners are engaged and where, crucially, the children, parents and people working at the coal face have the opportunity to build good relationships on a day-to-day basis. 
 Without the devolution and co-operation across boundaries that I have been talking about, what we all want to happen—the transformation of children's services—will be much more difficult. That would be the case particularly in the rural areas and shire counties of this country.

Tim Loughton: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's case, but I want to deal more nationally with the problem that he has identified. That is the purpose of our amendments Nos. 23 and 33, which have the same aims of co-operation as clauses 7 and 8.
 On Second Reading, I mentioned the real problem children placed out of area by an authority, and I think that the Minister took the point on board. I cited the example of what has been happening in my part of the world in west Sussex and specifically in Worthing in my constituency where a number of private children's homes have sprung up, the occupants of which appear to be getting disproportionately entangled with the law. That is not to make a specific comment on those people, but it is certainly a comment on the nature of the care that they are receiving, or more likely not receiving, in those private children's homes. 
 I gave the figures, which are from the Government, that the year before last there were 1,172 registered private children's homes, and last year the number had risen to 1,956. That is an enormous leap—it is a growth market. The chief inspector of police in Worthing told me two months ago that 23 per cent. of his monthly crime figures was committed by half a dozen teenage boys who supposedly resided in those private children's homes. That suggests that the standard of care is falling far short of what is required. 
 I have spoken to colleagues who have experienced the same problems, and we have taken the issue up with the Commission for Social Care Inspection, which is examining the problem. What is happening is that the line of accountability between the placing authority and the place where the looked-after young person ends up is very grey. Technically, responsibility should be with the placing authority that has the teenager in care and then places them out of area because of the suitability or availability of children's accommodation elsewhere. However, the minute that the young person leaves the authority's geographical zone and the cheque for his or her care is signed, the interest that the authority shows in the subsequent behaviour of that child falls well below the standards that we would expect. 
 Typically, the London authority placing a young person in a home in Worthing—I will not name names—does not appear to be doing the checks that we would hope for. So when the young person goes ''off the rails''—we should define that term—the finger of responsibility is pointed at West Sussex social services, which technically has no responsibility for that young person. There is no obligation on the placing authority even to tell West Sussex social services or West Sussex council that the person has been placed in that council's territory. It has been calculated, although we cannot tell for sure, that more than 200 such placements are made in West Sussex alone, and if something goes wrong, the local social services department is asked why it is not doing something about it. If the teenager gets into trouble, the local police then have to do something about it, and the local magistrates court increasingly has its time taken up dealing with the young people who fall foul of the law. That is in nobody's interests; it is certainly not in the interests of the host authority or its professionals, or of the placing authority and, most important, it is not in the interests of the young person or child who is placed out of area. 
 The purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that the children's services authorities do not just promote co-operation between the neighbouring authorities—a children's services authority, a primary care trust, another health institution and so on—which have day-to-day managerial arrangements in common, but actually have to promote co-operation with the host authority where the looked-after children or young people are placed. That point not clear in the Bill as drafted. The line of accountability is technically defined in Government regulations but, in practice, it is falling down. The amendment would remind placing authorities that they have a duty to co-operate and to pay greater regard to the well-being and the future of their looked-after children, even though they are out of sight—out of sight but not out of mind, to coin the phrase. 
 The amendment is important because it would tackle a very real problem. Technically, there may be problems with the wording of the amendment or its place in the Bill, but the Government need to take the problem on board and address it. They could do so by accepting the amendment, which goes to the heart of our approach to the problem of how to ''join up'' all the professionals in caring for looked-after children, particularly those who are especially problematic, such as the young people I have been talking about. 
 The amendment is constructive and helpful; I hope that the Minister will take it on board and give us words of encouragement. Many hon. Members will have experienced the same problems in their constituencies.

Annette Brooke: I support the amendments. I am particularly concerned about the criss-crossing of boundaries. Some county councils work very well with district councils, others do not. The situation is patchy across the country, as are the workings of different health authorities. The amendments have a lot to contribute to finding a solution.
 We heard on Second Reading of the tragedy of cases in which children may be placed out of London when they have just started with foster parents. I do not know the best way to tackle that problem, but it is right to raise these issues, because young people are falling through the gap. They are being blamed for their activities but do not get any support, and I am sympathetic to the view that we must do something about that.

Stephen Ladyman: When we consulted on ''Every child matters'', we received a very clear message from respondents that we needed to focus on outcomes rather than structures, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre would agree. That is why we have tried to create a duty to co-operate and to promote co-operation without being prescriptive about the structures that people must create to do that. There are different circumstances in different parts of the country, such as varying local pressures and boundary arrangements. Although amendments Nos. 59 and 60 seek to promote co-operation, which I support, they attempt to be prescriptive. Our thrust is not to be prescriptive, but to expect partnerships to measure themselves against outcomes. If outcomes were not delivered, we would expect partnerships to change.
 Co-operation needs a geographic focus and local authority boundaries are different. As my hon. Friend said, many partners do not have coterminous boundaries—for example, primary care trusts often do not have coterminous boundaries with local authorities—but we still have to create a partnership that works and makes sense locally. If he is asking whether, in an ideal world, we would start from where we are now, the answer is no. We would start by redesigning the boundaries of our councils and organisations and making them all coterminous. In that case, simple arrangements would be in place that we could put into the Bill. However, that is not the situation, so his amendments would be overly prescriptive in attempting to create the partnership rather than allowing it to meet local needs. 
 New clause 9 would, to some extent, impose a Lancaster model on the various partners. Since he drew on his experience in supporting his amendment, I shall give an example from my constituency. My constituency is in Kent—a large part is in Thanet; a small part is in Dover. Some parts of the partnership that we seek to create in Kent would want to take a countywide view of the issues. Equally, some issues would have to be devolved to the district council level on a Thanet or Dover basis. We also organise some things on the basis of east Kent—an area that covers Thanet, Dover and Canterbury—because that best suits us in local working and suits our geography. 
 Although I entirely accept what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, I encourage him to withdraw his amendment and accept that the more general duty that we have put in the Bill will allow people to create the partnerships that are needed in his, and everybody else's, area. We must measure the success of those 
 partnerships against outcomes and test them against whether they deliver for children—the only thing that matters. The formula in the Bill better reflects that. 
 Turning to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I again have a great deal of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve because I have exactly the same problem in my constituency, where there are a huge number of children's homes. Children are usually placed there from the London boroughs and, very occasionally, some children cause tensions in local communities. Historically, some of those homes have not been managed as well as they ought to have been. Surely the way to deal with that is to use the appropriate mechanisms—for example the Commission for Social Care Inspection, the Care Standards Act 2000 and other legal frameworks that we have put in place to ensure that we drive up standards. 
 I doubt whether it would be appropriate to put the duties that the hon. Gentleman is talking about in this Bill alongside the general arrangements to encourage co-operation, because there are existing laws. He may well argue that we are not enforcing those laws well enough, and I have some sympathy with that view, from a constituency perspective. However, part 3 of the Children Act 1989 deals with that: section 27 requires co-operation between local authorities—although he may argue that we must enforce that better. The Act's placement regulations cover that area of work. Again, he may well argue that they should be enforced better, and I might not disagree with him. However, the amendments that he proposes would be out of place in this Bill, and would not achieve the outcomes that he is looking for. 
 Finally, there is another amendment in this group: perhaps I shall not refer to it as it has not been raised. 
Mr. Turner rose—

Stephen Ladyman: Does the hon. Gentleman want to comment on it now?

Andrew Turner: The reason why I did not raise amendment No. 215 was that I thought it was self-explanatory, and I invite the Minister to respond to it anyway.

Stephen Ladyman: In that case, I am happy to do so. First, though, I should like to correct something that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said—that there was no obligation on the placing authority to notify the host authority where a child is placed. There is such an obligation. Perhaps I can write to him with chapter and verse on where that obligation arises from so that he can use that information in future discussions with his local agencies.
 Amendment No. 215 is flawed because there is one Learning and Skills Council for the whole of England. It happens to have 47 local arms, but there is one organisation for the whole country. The wording includes the 47 local arms by default, so it is not necessary to amend the Bill. As an aside, the amendment would in fact change the name of the 
 Learning and Skills Council in the process, so for that reason, if for no other, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press it.

Andrew Turner: Thank you.

Tim Loughton: I am glad that the Minister has sympathy with the thrust of the amendments. Clearly, the procedure is not happening: I pointed out that the systems are in place but are not working. He said that this is not an appropriate Bill in which to raise the matter, but I think that it is the most appropriate Bill in which to do so because we aim to look after the most vulnerable children. Some of the children whom I have described are among the most vulnerable, for all the reasons that we discussed earlier. I do not see why it would be inappropriate to replicate, enforce and strengthen what he says is already in the 1989 Act, by putting it into a new, more appropriate context here. I take his point but I am not entirely convinced by it.
 The Minister also refers to the Commission for Social Care Inspection as the appropriate investigating authority. That is true, but its role is primarily to look at the standard of the homes themselves. That is one thing, although in a ministerial answer, I will be told that the level of inspections of some of those homes is high. When I raised the matter in a previous debate, pointing out that 46 per cent. of unannounced inspections of private children's homes had not been carried out by CSCI's predecessor body, I received a very curt letter from the previous head of that body pointing out that my statistics were wrong. I politely responded to her that I had obtained them from her own annual report. My contention is that the system is clearly not working.

Stephen Ladyman: I certainly take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about enforcement not happening, and we must move forward on that. My right hon. Friend has already taken steps to start to look at how that can be improved. The hon. Gentleman should not forget that the Commission for Social Care Inspection includes not only the National Care Standards Council—one of the predecessor bodies to which he refers—but the social services inspectorate, previously in the Department of Health, so CSCI's role, working with other partners such as Ofsted and the Healthcare Commission, will be to inspect both sides of the equation. It will inspect both the councils and the providers of care. It has an opportunity that the predecessor bodies did not have.

Tim Loughton: I entirely take that point, but as far as I know, it will not investigate the links between a placing and a host authority. We do not say that the placing authority or the host authority is no good. We say that the links between the placing and the host authorities leave a lot to be desired. I do not think that the two bodies that the Minister mentioned have a role to play, which is why it is appropriate to place a duty in the Bill to ensure that there is some linking up.
 The whole Bill is about the joined-up approach and where the buck stops. I will not press the amendments, but I hope that the Government will take this on board. One solution to all of this is to ensure that we get many more and better foster carers so that children can stay with them closer to home. The whole problem then wonderfully disappears. That is for another debate. I am pleased about the Government's comments, but we need to see some more cohesive action.

Stephen Ladyman: I am reassured that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendments. I want to give him some further reassurance that the links between the commissioners and the providers are very important. We are about to start consulting on a draft circular to remind authorities of their responsibility in ensuring that these links exist.

Tim Loughton: That is very helpful. I should be interested to see that. The impression I was given by the relevant agencies in my part of the world was that there was no duty on a placing authority to report to the host authority. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me with the relevant regulations so that I can point them out to them.

Hilton Dawson: I am sorry to sound prescriptive to my hon. Friend. All I was trying to prescribe was that decisions about the lives of children and families are generally best made closest to where they live and involving the co-operation of all partners and all organisations that might have something to do with it. I know as well as I know anything that my proposal would be the right thing to do across a large part of the country. I am sorry that he cannot take this any further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in
clause 7, page 5, line 28, at end insert 'and emotional well-being'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 133 and 144. 
 Amendment No. 103, in 
clause 21, page 16, line 11, after '(e)', insert 'emotional'.

Stephen Ladyman: As I said, on the last group, the Government based the Bill on outcomes, particularly the outcomes that children told us were important. Their Lordships decided in their wisdom to add an outcome that children had not told us about. In the context of a Bill where we are supposed to be listening to children, I thought that said something about the House of Lords. Nevertheless, emotional well-being is important. We are happy that it remains in the Bill but their Lordships put it in what we considered to be an illogical place, so the amendments move it to a more logical place. Equally, their Lordships were obviously working from the map produced by the European Union that omitted Wales, because they forgot that Wales existed in the Bill. They did not include their
 amendment in clause 21. Our amendment here does for Wales what their Lordships' amendment does for England.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 133, in 
clause 7, page 5, line 32, leave out 'emotional,'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in
clause 7, page 5, line 32, at end insert—
'(f) housing and accommodation'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 200, in 
clause 7, page 5, line 32, at end insert— 
 '(f) housing needs'. 
New clause 37—Assessment of children in need— 
 'After section 213A(3) of the Housing Act 1996 (c.52), insert— 
 ''(3A) Upon receiving a referral under subsection (2) or (3), the social services authority shall carry out an assessment of the needs of the child or children in question for the purposes of Part 3 of the Children Act 1989.''.'. 
New clause 38—Provision of housing assistance for children in need— 
 'After section 17(6) of the Children Act 1989 (c.41), insert— 
 ''(6A) Where a child is in need because, or partly because, he has no accommodation, in exercising their powers under subsection (6), the authority shall have regard in particular to the following factors— 
 (a) the objectives specified in subsection (1); 
 (b) the effects upon the child of his lack of adequate accommodation; 
 (c) the benefit to the child of being accommodated together with other members of his household; 
 (d) the relative cost to the authority of providing accommodation for the child with other members of his household and of accommodating the child under section 20; 
 (e) the rights of the child and of others under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 
 (6B) Where an authority has reason to believe that a child may be a child in need because, or partly because, he has no accommodation, they shall have the power to provide accommodation or appropriate assistance on an interim basis pending an assessment of the child's needs under section 213A(3A) of the Housing Act 1996. 
 (6C) Where an authority declines to provide services under this section or decides to provide services other than those requested, whether on an interim basis or otherwise, they shall give reasons in writing for their decision.''.'. 
New clause 39—Appointment of designated liaison officer by housing authorities— 
 'Any housing authority for the area covered by the children's service authority must appoint a designated officer to liaise between all registered social housing providers within the housing authority area and the children's service authority.'.

Tim Loughton: The amendment relates to subsection (2), which concerns the improvement of the well-being of children in an authority's area according to a certain set of criteria. A number of representations have been made concerning the omission of an obvious criterion: housing and accommodation. We therefore seek to remedy that omission by the addition of a paragraph (f).
 If we asked GPs about the things that we could do to improve the health of children, particularly in inner-city areas, many would answer: improve the standard 
 of housing. Many health-related problems, particularly in inner cities, are connected with poor or damp housing or other housing issues such as the availability of suitable heating. That is an important consideration, which is why we seek to add housing and accommodation to the key criteria in subsection (2). 
 Poor housing can cause all sorts of physical problems and also mental health problems and stress, which may lead to antisocial behaviour. It seems odd that housing and accommodation have been missed out completely as considerations to which local authorities should have regard in promoting co-operation in the interests of the well-being of children. They are obvious candidates to add to the list, and their inclusion is supported by many outside bodies concerned with children. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) has tabled an amendment that refers to housing need, so there is support from both sides of the Committee. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can explain why housing and accommodation have not been included, or how that issue has been taken account of in other parts of the Bill.

Chris Mole: May I be perhaps the last today to welcome you to the Chair, Dame Marion?
 I want to say a few words about amendment No. 200 and new clauses 37 and 38. The intention behind the amendment is to include housing in the list of criteria as a key factor in promoting children's well-being. Lord Laming pointed to the relationship between housing and social services; when families have been placed in temporary accommodation, that is one of the factors that contributes towards difficulties. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to that. 
 Moreover, the Government's intentions as expressed in ''Every child matters'' identified homelessness as a key risk factor in poor outcomes for children, so it is somewhat surprising that housing has not been included in the Bill. Dame Denise Platt, the chair of the Commission for Social Care Inspection, has also suggested that the Bill does not adequately address housing issues. 
 My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families acknowledged in May in Community Care magazine that she did not think that we had yet done enough about housing. My reason for wanting to raise the issue is that I think that housing is likely to become an increasing problem, particularly with the application of antisocial behaviour legislation. Clamping down on unacceptable behaviour by tenants can produce the by-product of children who are inappropriately housed. 
 One example of that is that of a constituent, a single mum with a chaotic lifestyle, who has twice been evicted from council housing and is therefore classed as intentionally homeless. She now lives in bed-and-breakfast accommodation with five children, one of whom has autism, at a cost of £700 a week to Suffolk 
 social care services. I do not want to drive a coach and horses through the antisocial behaviour policies, but I think that we need agencies to respond properly to such situations. To what extent are the Government aware of the scale of this problem? Has any research into appropriate family support solutions been undertaken? Are any statistics available? The purpose of this probing amendment is to find out the Government thinking on those issues. 
 With new clauses 37 and 38, I seek to improve housing assistance processes. I stress that these may be appropriate solutions other than housing itself, such as interim accommodation or advice and assistance. We do not want the alternative to end up being the taking of children into care, as that runs against the spirit of what we are trying to achieve with the Bill. 
 As has already been said, although there are some good social care practices across the UK, Shelter and other bodies have drawn attention to the fact that some may be patchy at best. New clause 37 would amend legislation concerning a duty of co-operation to make it clear that, when a family is referred to social services under that legislation, an assessment must be carried out . 
 New clause 38 would strengthen the power to provide housing assistance through rent deposits or other guarantees. It sets out a framework in which to consider the effects on the child of inadequate housing, and the costs and benefits of housing the child and family together. It is often felt that the weakness of the current legislative framework is used by some social care authorities to do little or nothing in such circumstances. The new clause would add to legislation not a duty to provide accommodation, but a set of factors that should be considered in deciding what response to make. 
 Does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health acknowledge those issues? What do the Government plan to do to develop responses that go beyond traditional social care assessment and seek truly to address the family circumstances that led to the intentionally homeless situation in the first place, whether through legislation, guidance or stronger protocols at a local authority level? At the very least, the commissioning of some research would be welcome.

Annette Brooke: I am very supportive of the concepts behind these amendments. It is essential that housing is included in the Bill, but it is difficult to put it in. I am concerned that amendments Nos. 25 and 200 would put housing, which is a means, among outcomes. As much as I appreciate the arguments, I do not think that they work.
 I support entirely the principles behind new clauses 37 and 38. I have heard some harrowing stories from Shelter about children being taken into care. I am interested to hear the Minister's response to that, and hope that we will consider it in some detail.

Marion Roe: Order. Could the hon. Lady please raise her voice? I know that it could be difficult, but the Hansard staff are having difficulty hearing her.

Annette Brooke: I apologise. New clause 39 is a probing amendment, but I tried to take on board the fact that in discussions in the other place the response was often, ''That is not a strategic authority; this is a strategic authority.'' The Bill names the local authority but not the housing part, because it is said to be within the local authority. I feel that the Bill should name the housing authority because, again, there is the issue of the balance between the county council and the district council. I am particularly concerned these days about the fact that we are not talking just about local authority housing. There is arm's-length management; council housing has been sold off to housing trusts; and we have other registered social housing.
 That is the thinking behind the new clause, which I have not debated with the Local Government Association, although such consultation would certainly be needed. If one could appoint a designated officer from the housing authority to be the point of liaison between all the registered social housing providers and the children's services authority, we could perhaps attempt to close the gaps exposed by the Victoria Climbie case, in which a housing authority was not acting. The new clause is designed merely to ask the Minister whether referring in the Bill to the important issue of housing could have advantages and enable us to try to close some of the gaps that must exist, given the various types of social housing provider that exist these days.

Stephen Ladyman: Nobody in the Government would argue with the sentiments that have been expressed. Housing is, of course, vital to children; there is no question about that. If they are to be healthy and to thrive, they need good accommodation. They need a refuge, a place where they can grow and feel safe and comfortable. However, the Bill already includes the necessary assurances to ensure that housing is taken into account. With regard to two-tier authorities, for example, clause 7 specifically refers to district councils. One of the district councils' duties is housing. Another relates to leisure activities, which are also of great importance to children. Because district councils have to co-operate as part of the arrangements that we are discussing, all their statutory duties, including their housing function, are automatically included.
 In relation to unitary authorities, we will issue statutory guidance on the lead member and director of children's services—to which clauses 14 and 15 relate—to make it clear that the director will be part of the local authority corporate team. That encompasses the housing responsibilities of unitary authorities. Furthermore, the five outcomes that we listed in ''Every child matters'', which were identified by children and young people as the most important ones to them, have been developed into an outcomes framework that will be used to inform planning, assessment and inspection. The framework will include a reference to the importance of 
 accommodation and housing. I hope that that explanation reassures the Committee in respect of amendments Nos. 25 and 200. 
 Again, I have the greatest sympathy with the views expressed on new clause 37. However, where families with children are found to be intentionally homeless so that they are owed no duty under housing and homelessness legislation, the Children Act 1989 provides a safety net for the children and, where relevant, the parents, as being homeless might well mean that the children would become ''children in need'' and the local authority would have the power to provide accommodation for them under section 17 of that Act. 
 The action taken by social services in each case—as in all other cases in which children are in need according to the assessment of the needs of the child—is carried out in accordance with the Government's guidance, ''Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families''. Such assessments may result in local authorities offering to assist children and their families with support towards accommodation. Alternatively, the local authority may offer to accommodate children under section 20 of the 1989 Act. 
 The local authority may decline to offer services to the child and family if it does not view the child as a child in need, or if the needs of the child are not as great as the needs of those to whom services are already being provided using the resources available to the local authority.

Chris Mole: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Ladyman: May I finish these points first? Afterwards I shall certainly give way.
 The homelessness legislation already imposes a duty on housing authorities to ensure that homeless families with children who are not eligible for the main homelessness duty are promptly brought to the attention of social services.

Chris Mole: My hon. Friend draws attention to the existing legislative framework that should provide protection, but do the Government have any evidence that it is working, and are statistics collected? If not, will he commit himself to finding out whether the framework works for future reviews of the subject?

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend has returned to the conditions of enforcement. If the existing legislation is not working, we need to make sure that it does. The issues that my hon. Friend mentioned are subject to inspection. I am happy to write to him and tell him what exactly the mechanisms for inspection are and where he can find the relevant statistics.
 In general, it would be inappropriate to place a specific duty on social services to undertake assessments of children referred to them by housing authorities. The power to undertake assessments is set out clearly in the 1989 Act and the related statutory guidance. The legislation does not place a compulsory assessment duty on local authorities in relation 
 tonamed potential needs. It would not be useful to create a list of particular needs that are to be accompanied by a specific assessment duty above and beyond what is provided for in the existing powers. 
 With more than 250,000 initial 1989 Act assessments being undertaken by local authorities each year, it would be wrong to single out specific issues that involve additional assessment requirements. Such queue-jumping might well be harmful to the interests of children if, for example, the assessment of child protection referrals were placed behind those relating to housing, simply because the latter were associated with an assessment duty, as is proposed under the new clause. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the new clause. 
 On new clause 38, the 1989 Act places duties on local authorities in relation to children in need in their area. Section 17 gives a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need by providing a range of services. Section 20 provides a specific duty to provide accommodation for an individual child in need. Both sections may be used to provide a child with accommodation but, in the case of section 17, children and their parents may be supported together. 
 The assessment of a child's needs by social services is expected to be carried out in accordance with the statutory guidance. The duties imposed on housing authorities dealing with applicants with children who are intentionally homeless or otherwise ineligible for assistance are set out clearly in the ''Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities'', published in July 2002. 
 With new clause 39, I once again support the intention, but not the proposed methods. In some cases it might make good sense to have a liaison officer post, but in others it might not. In unitary authorities, the housing department is an integral part of the children's services authority; in two-tier authorities it is part of the district council. This is not a case in which we can prescribe a single solution that covers all eventualities. 
 Registered social landlords are already subject to regulation. They are accountable to the Housing Corporation through a regulatory code, which requires registered social landlords to demonstrate that their strategies and policies are responsive to the needs and circumstances of local people and link into regional and local housing strategies. 
 I hope that I have demonstrated that there are sufficient safeguards in place. The Government entirely accept the principles of the importance of housing which have been set out today. We shall ensure that the partnerships focus on that issue and, if necessary, we will take appropriate steps to ensure that existing legislation is better enforced.

Tim Loughton: I fully take the Minister's point, and I am grateful for the detail that he has given. If he entirely agrees with the principles that we have tried to set out under the amendments, I am entirely happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in
clause 7, page 5, line 32, at end insert—
 '( ) In making arrangements under this section a children's services authority shall ensure that—
(a) the well-being of children set out in subsection (2) is monitored and evaluated;
(b) children and young people's views and experiences are included in any monitoring and evaluation undertaken under this subsection;
(c) a report on improvements in children's well-being is made annually to the Secretary of State.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 61, in 
clause 7, page 5, line 34, after 'must', insert 
 'consult with children and should'.

Tim Loughton: This amendment is about monitoring and evaluating children's outcomes. As we have said all along, the success of the Bill will be measured in terms not only of the structures put in place, but of the outcomes that they achieve. Therefore, amendment No. 26 seeks to establish a monitoring arrangement whereby the criteria set out in the clause can be properly evaluated in a meaningful way, rather than merely having the process for its own sake. The Children's Society has been keen to add something of that nature to the Bill.
 This is a probing amendment to clarify the Government's expectations of how the five outcomes for children will be measured. First, it probes whether children's services authorities will be given a clear statutory responsibility for measuring and evaluating children's outcomes. Secondly, it argues that the Bill is an opportunity to ensure in statute that the views and experiences of children and young people are at the heart of that evaluation. Thirdly, it seeks to establish how local monitoring will be collated and made available nationally. 
 Being able to establish and document the impact of service activity on children's outcomes must be integral to making the new policy a meaningful and tangible change for the better. Although a wide range of existing and new processes, such as inspection reports, service contracting monitoring and local needs assessment, will produce vital evidence about the impact of services on children, there is no simple or clear responsibility for each children's services authority to gather the evidence in a co-ordinated way and to report on progress. Without a clear and standard expectation of who should do that, how often it should be done and according to what principles, difficulties could remain in establishing common baseline information nationally and there could be scope for substantial variation in the quality of, and approach taken to, evaluation of the outcomes. 
 It is a straightforward amendment, and I am sure that the Government can understand what we are trying to achieve. If that cannot be achieved through the amendment, how do the Government propose to evaluate what the Bill will put in place?

Hilton Dawson: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I am hopeful that the Government will accept amendment No. 61. It is entirely reasonable, although every amendment that I have moved over the two days of this Committee has been entirely reasonable.
 I have high hopes for this amendment. After everything that has been said, I do not think that anyone would dissent from the view that children's services authorities must consult children when making arrangements to promote co-operation with a view to improving their well-being, their physical and mental health, protecting them from harm and neglect, improving their education, training and recreation, and the other desirables listed in subsection (2). 
 It is impossible properly to achieve any of those outcomes without the extremely effective participation of children and young people. They will tell children's services authorities the truth about the quality of their services. They will have good ideas about the way that those services can be developed, which will not be known to adults because children are the recipients of those services and have a different perspective on them. The engagement of children and young people in those services will be crucial to their success. I hope that the Government will accept amendment No. 61.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre is absolutely right: the voice of children is essential. Indeed, it is the golden thread that runs throughout the Bill, and the five outcomes expressed by children in the Bill must be what we test its success against. That is why in July 2004 we appointed Children's Express to establish and run the Children and Youth Board. As my hon. Friend will know, the board is made up of 25 young people from across the UK and it will advise at least eight Government Departments on different aspects of their work. That is also why we strongly encourage children's services authorities to consult regularly their children and young people.
 Whether placing a duty to listen to the voice of children in the Bill would further the objective or simply lead to a bureaucratic process is an argument that we can have. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we believe that rather than include it in the Bill, it would be better to put it in guidance. I am happy to assure him that we will send a clear message in the guidance that we issue. 
 I turn now to amendment No. 26, which deals with monitoring and evaluation. We will be creating joint area reviews, which I am sure will eventually become known as JARs. They will be inspections of local areas and will report on performance in respect of the five outcomes for children and on how well the agencies that provide services for children are working together. No doubt, we will debate that further when we consider later clauses. As well as the JAR, there will be an annual performance assessment of the local authority children's services, focusing on how children's services improve outcomes. The annual performance assessment will inform the broader, local authority-wide comprehensive performance assessment. 
 Planning, inspection and assessment arrangements will also provide opportunities to listen to children and young people. Inspectorates will seek the views of children locally before a JAR is held, and the evidence that the children and young people provide will contribute towards the inspectors' judgments. Local authority self-assessments will also cover how local authorities listen to the views of children. Regulations on the children and young people's plan will require authorities to consult children and young people. Taken together, that is a raft of measures to carry out the monitoring. 
 I do not think that an annual report by the Secretary of State will be necessary. Inspection reports will be published, as will comprehensive performance assessment scores and the outcomes of the other inspections. Information will be widely available, and nothing would be gained by an annual report. Although I sympathise once again with the intention behind the amendment, I believe that we have covered it well enough in the plans, guidance and the Bill as it stands.

Tim Loughton: JARs, annual performance assessments, planning, inspection and assessment arrangements, inspectorates, local authority self-assessments, regulations, and children and young people's plans—I despair. How much of the money going to the structures could have been spent on actually looking after the children? That is what we are worried about. What we are trying to achieve with the amendment is to bring together in a joined-up way what a lot of different professionals are thought to be achieving. That is our worry about how some of the Bill is structured. The current weakness in the system is that so many people are doing so many different things in silos. That is what we are supposedly trying to legislate against.
 Before the Minister, however, comes up with another long list of all the people whom we employ at great public expense, and in order to move the debate on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in
clause 7, page 5, line 32, at end insert—
 '(2A) Equality of opportunity must be considered in relation to subsection 2(a) to (e).'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 14——Equal opportunities 
 'Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act, Children's Services Authorities in Wales and their relevant partners shall have regard to combating social exclusion and discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.'. 
New clause 40——Equal opportunities (No. 2) 
 'Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act, children's services authorities in England and their relevant partners shall have due regard to the need to combat social exclusion and discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, family status or sexual orientation.'. 
New clause 41——Equality of opportunity
 '(1) In exercising his functions the director of children's services must have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. 
 (2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year the director of children's services must make a report containing an assessment of how effective the arrangements made under subsection (1) were in improving the wellbeing of disabled children in his area and the promotion of equality of opportunity for children generally. 
 (3) The report must also contain a statement of the arrangements which he has made, or proposes to make, under subsection (1) in respect of the financial year immediately following that referred to in subsection (2).'.

Annette Brooke: The intention of amendment No. 93 is to ensure that equality of opportunity is reflected at appropriate points in the Bill. On Tuesday, we discussed the possibility of equality of opportunity being included in clause 2 so that the Children's Commissioner would be mindful of it. Now that the outcomes have been added to clause 2, my amendment would ensure that he has to have regard to equality of opportunity.
 The purpose of new clause 14 is to create a cross-cutting, positive equality duty for children's services in Wales. I make no excuse for the fact that it is modelled on new clause 40, which would apply to England. New clause 41 would ensure that the new directors of children's services take responsibility for positively tackling discrimination and promoting equal opportunities for all children. It is modelled on the equality duty of the Learning and Skills Council and includes a duty to report on the effectiveness of the arrangements. 
 Equality of opportunity is central to the remit of children's services authorities in England and Wales. Amendments similar to those that we are discussing won cross-party backing in the other place and the Government promised to give the matter further consideration. This might be the moment that we have all been waiting for—the Government's acceptance of some the arguments that have been advanced. 
 The new arrangements in the Bill for improved co-ordination of children's services and multi-agency work could lead to major improvements in social inclusion and the life chances of disabled children and their families. However, for them to be able to realise their potential there must be a firmer focus in the Bill on tackling discriminatory barriers that disabled children and others face. There needs to be a specific reference in the Bill to promoting equality. 
 The Disability Rights Commission believes that the Government should impose a specific statutory duty on children's services authorities and/or the proposed new directors to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity for the disabled and all the others that have been mentioned—the children of asylum seekers, for example. 
 The Government were heavily criticised in respect of the United Kingdom's compliance with the convention in the last report of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2002. It expressed concern that the principle of non-discrimination is not fully implemented in respect of all children in all parts of the country, that unequal 
 enjoyment of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights still exist, especially for children with disabilities, asylum and refugee children, children in the care system, detained children and so on. 
 These equality amendments and new clauses would enable the Government to implement the committee's recommendation of comprehensive strategies containing specific and well targeted actions, which would be aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination. The amendments would give the Bill, which we all support, a step forward.

Julie Morgan: I shall speak briefly to new clause 14. The hon. Lady made most of the points that I want to make. The amendments and the new clauses acknowledge the barriers that exist for many children, and the hon. Lady mentioned the children who do not have equal access to services or the same rights as other children—they include Traveller children, the children of asylum seekers and many others, especially those with disabilities. In the other place, the Government said that they would consider similar amendments. I look forward to their response.

Stephen Ladyman: Once again, the Government have nothing but sympathy for the sentiments behind the amendments, but whether they would be effective, or whether the Bill is the place to achieve their aims is another matter.
 There is already a strong framework of anti-discrimination protection in law, to which all public bodies are subject. They cannot discriminate on grounds of race, disability or gender. In addition, there is a positive duty on public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. A similar positive duty to promote equalisation of opportunity for disabled people is included in the draft Disability 
 Bill, and the Government are committed to a duty requiring the promotion of gender equality when the legislative programme allows. 
 We recognise such issues and believe that there is a body of legislation to support the case already. In addition, we believe that the commission for equality and human rights will take the issues forward. Once it is created, it will begin discussions with the aim of bringing forward a single equality Act. The issues will be better addressed within that framework.

Annette Brooke: I am disappointed that the Government have made no move on this issue. Just putting the concept of equality of opportunity in the Bill would make a strong statement. If that concept were included in the context of the outcomes, everybody who had anything to do with children would have it brought to the top of their agenda.
 I will withdraw the amendment, but I ask the Minister to give at least some consideration to how equality of opportunity can be worked into the outcomes. It is highly unlikely that, when asked, children will use the phrase ''equality of opportunity'', although they might say, ''It's not fair!'' However, I think that there is a place for that phrase in the outcomes.

Stephen Ladyman: To give the hon. Lady further reassurance, we will make clear statements on that issue in the guidance that accompanies the two clauses.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Vernon Coaker.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Five o'clock until Tuesday 19 October at five minutes to Nine o'clock.